Live data from Hacker News

American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

washingtonpost.com

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#24
post #15
post #13

[flagged]

They will just say free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences

I know, I was mocking them. They’ve been liars from the start who always start screeching the second their thin skin is tested.

They desire the ability to say the most atrocious shit to anyone without consequences but then want anyone who questions them immediately silenced.

Meeting a self described “free speech absolutist” with principles is as rare as meeting a self described libertarian with principles

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#26
post #13

[flagged]

Free speech was always just the pretext. They still rage about Europe or Australia regulating social media or punishing people for using social media to commit crimes, even when the arguments those actions infringe on protected speech are far weaker than this situation.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#27
post #22
post #6

How many people will this administration kill?

[flagged]

> American Academy of Pediatrics treats nobody. At best it’s a lobbyist group

In their FYE 2025, the AAP spent 6% and 3% of its $113mm budget on advocacy and membership, respectively [1].

Most of its money goes to child health activities (43%), educational publishing (30%) and education activities (14%).

[1] https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20Financial%20Statemen...

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#29
post #22
post #6

How many people will this administration kill?

[flagged]

I think the content of the article sufficiently disproves your assertion. Actually, the headline does too IMHO.

The idea that it’s immoral for NGOs (much less professional orgs) to represent themselves to legislatures is unserious.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#30
post #24
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will just say free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences

I know, I was mocking them. They’ve been liars from the start who always start screeching the second their thin skin is tested. They desire the ability to say the most atrocious shit to anyone without consequences but then want anyone who questions them immediately silenced. Meeting a self described “free speech absolutist” with principles is as rare as meeting a self described libertarian with principles

Hello.

I would not trust any corporation (sometimes it's profitable to remove something so they retain control of some market) or government (sometimes it secures their power to keep people unaware of some facts about their actions) to only censor what is "truly" good for us to have censored. Why would anybody? The free exchange of ideas is a prerequisite for a just world. You cannot build one without it, because to build a just world you must change what is unjust. To change what is unjust, you must remove power from those who unjustly hold it. You can't do that if you can't communicate the injustice. If you place limits on the free exchange of ideas "just for this one really bad thing" then you have forfeited your own future ability to resist when a good and true idea is wrongfully labelled harmful by powerful and corrupt figures. Every single authoritarian regime in history has made speaking ill of the leadership a crime, because speech control is powerful. The power to ban information is too great to be entrusted to any authority at all. Depending on how thorough the "ban" (web text filter at the ISP level? mandatory AR implants at birth filtering banned content? worse?), it's anywhere from an abhorrent violation of human rights and the principles behind scientific inquiry all the way up through literally the most powerful weapon which could even theoretically be designed.

Must we burn this book? No. The answer is always no.

I am in favor of extremely strong free speech, legally and more importantly morally, because there is simply no acceptable alternative.

Post reply on HN